So lessee what we’ve got…
With the public being concerned over the continued erosion of right to privacy, Bush signs off on a bill to tighten up privacy laws regarding the postal service…but reserves the right to, y’know, ignore it. Having his veto and eating it to, you might say.
With the public massively convinced that the Iraq war was and is a fiasco, rather than pulling out, talk is now rife over the prospect of sending in anywhere from 9000 to 20,000 more troops. Y’know…it wasn’ t all that long ago that when some diehards would insist that, had we sent in more troops to Vietnam, we still could have won that war, people would just shake their heads and figure that said diehards were…well…morons. That Kevin Kline’s character in “A Fish Called Wanda” defiantly claiming that we didn’t lose Vietnam…”it was a tie”…was greeted with laughter. And hey…remember the good old days when supporters claimed that Iraq wasn’t anything like Vietnam, an endless black hole of young American lives being tossed into a bottomless quagmire with no clear mission and no end in sight? And remember when the notion of a buffoon who couldn’t put two sentences together without sounding like a moron becoming president was so ridiculous that Dan Quayle just kind of dried up and blew away? Man, those were the days.
And now the Democrats are endeavoring to storm through Congress, in their first 100 hours, as many of the recommendations of the 9/11 committee as possible and Rep. Peter King is claiming that ignoring the standard committee process is “trivializing” the situation. Here I kinda thought that putting pedal to the medal was a way of underscoring the importance of something rather than trivializing it.
But hey…at least the President is insisting that Congress balance the budget within five years. Funny how he didn’t insist upon that when the GOP was in charge, isn’t it.
PAD
• 
In 5 years, yah right, after he’s long gone. In other words, I’ll keep ramming up the debt and you fix it when I’m gone… Just like we’ll fix Iraq, the environment and probably try to pull ourselves out of a depression. We are in for 2 years of the loudest cry baby whine we’ve ever heard. The repubs are already in full whine.
It will be VERY interesting to watch how the balance of power influences major commitments of US troops in the coming months.
For anyone interested, there’s a website for postal workers (though I don’t believe they’re turning everyone else away) at http://postalworkersunited.blogspot.com/ and there’s a link to an online petition as well.
Wildcat
Peter, Iraq isn’t another Vietnam. Trust me, it’s worse.
It’s Afghanistan, and we’re the Russians.
Think on it.
Miles
Hey Pad, all those deadlines you make for marvel, STOP TRIVIALIZING THE COMICS INDUSTRY! lol.
JAC
There is some good news: Sen. Obamba told Bush yesterday that the dems would not support a troop surge in Iraq.
Bush is Orwell’s worst nightmare. Some people thought he was kidding about everything would be easier if he was a dictator, but he wasn’t. The good news is that if Bush tries to use our military to keep himself in power, the military will tell him to take a flying leep.
The one thing we have to worry about is unlike Nixon, Bush has his own media to plead his case for him because there is no objective media unlike in ’73 when reporters were all over Nixon and Watergate. People like O’Relly say: If you have nothing to hide then why are you worried? I ask: Why do you need to look in my mail to start with?
Peter, just thought you’d like to know Thom Heartman praised the writers at Marvel for Civil War. He thinks it’s a really good story.
If anyone can, they should watch the old Twlight Zone episode “He’s Alive”. What Dennis Hooper’s character says in the episode is almost word for word what people like Limbaugh and gang say.
Andy McCarthy makes the following point:
To reiterate, the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches, not warrantless searches. Consequently, the courts have recognized for years that exigent circumstances justify agents in conducting a search without a judicial warrant.
Furthermore, the president has inherent authority under Article II of the constitution to conduct warrantless searches for national security purposes — at least when the nation is threatened by a foreign power. Thus, for example, did Clinton administration Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick quite correctly insist, in 1994 testimony before Congress, that the president maintained the power to conduct warrantless national security searches even though Congress was then expanding FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which governs national security wiretaps) to cover physical searches.
On the other hand, he also raises another point–if the president HAS the right to do this then why even bother with making a signing statement? It accomplishes nothing except getting your opponents riled up…seems pointless to do it if it isn’t necessary.
Y’know, I know I mentioned on the earlier thread that maybe impeachment would not be a good idea, but I’m seriously beginning to think we should. Hasn’t it been established now that he’s committed high crimes and misdemeanors? Is it so much to ask that our President follow and uphold the Constitution, y’know, like he promised to do when he put his hand on his Bible and was sworn in as President?
Honest to God, does this surprise anybody?
the long and short of it is NOPE!!!!! but this just in I have figured out why bush does not believe in evolution, his entire life goes against the theory… If Darwin was right the stupid bášŧárd should have choked to death on a marble or a cork about 58 years ago….
But hey…at least the President is insisting that Congress balance the budget within five years.
Ignoring the uncomfortable fact, of course, that the budget was balanced when he came into office. Bush’s problems are of his own making.
This is what I posted earlier this week on a liberal website.
“There are those who think that Bush’s push for an escalation “surge” of troops is so that he can run out the clock during his presidency and not have to withdraw, thereby “losing” in Iraq. Leave that for the next guy.
I don’t think that’s it at all. This guy is unhinged. He has a messiah complex and thinks he’s doing the work of God.
He thinks he’s fûçkìņg Moses at the Red Sea. All the people are yelling to go back, they are cornered and in fear. But Moses parts the Red Sea and they go to freedom. Comdr. Cuckoo-bananas thinks he is destined to win this great victory. The more things build against him, the more he thinks his resolve is being tested. This is Biblical šhìŧ. Cooler, more rational heads will not prevail while he struts to glory.
It’s not time for impeachment, it’s time to invoke the 25th Amendment. He is no longer mentally capable of fulfilling his duties. (As if he ever was!)”
The only thing that might surprise me is if there’s an authority he doesn’t have.
To respond to edhopper’s call for invoking the 25th Amendment: There’s no such provision for anyone to “invoke” the Amendment.
The Amendment reads
1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
At this point, Bush has not been REMOVED nor has he died or resigned. At any rate, this leaves us with Cheney assuming power.
2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
This clause isn’t relevant at this point in time.
3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Here is a major point, but it relies on Bush’s self-declaration of inability. That ain’t gonna happen without someone (like Cheney or Condi) “suggesting” he do so.
4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Okay, this was the “24” scenario from a couple of seasons back. Unfortunately, we don’t have enough Cabinet Secretaries (the “principal officers of the executive departments” mentioned) who would be party to this since they owe their jobs to Dubya. If, however, Cheney (or Rove, perhaps) strongarms enough, this could happen. This scenario, however, wouldn’t help the Republican Party as much as Bush “resigning” in the face of some external “liberal” pressure. (You just know that Rove would be on Fox News within minutes, claiming that the “liberals” had unfairly set the stage for a “coup”.)
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
This is actually the scariest part since, at the present time, there’s a very good chance that Bush could return to office if he’s removed based on the “inability” clause. Neither House of Congress has a solid 2/3 majority which would vote to keep Bush out. I imagine that this means that in the House 290 members have to vote against Bush and that 67 Senators would have to vote against Bush; failing to achieve those numbers in either House could restore Bush if he’s removed against his wishes.
Is it so much to ask that our President follow and uphold the Constitution, y’know, like he promised to do when he put his hand on his Bible and was sworn in as President?
Maybe he we swore on was only the cover of a bible over a copy of the Koran or something, so he thinks that means it doesn’t count.
The repubs are already in full whine.
No kidding. When the Dems decided to do for a mere 100 hours what the the Repubs continually did for the last four years, the caterwauling could be heard by Voyager 2.
I say “boo-fricken-hoo”.
And watch, in the event that the Dem proposals take 101 hours to do, the GOP will cry foul like a spoiled child whose been told “no”.
Yeah, Luigi, I may be shifting that way as well. I was hoping that Bush might be more likely to bend a bit once much of his cover and support went poof. He really seemed to be acting like he might the two weeks or so after the elections. I had thought that maybe he lost his Rove colored glasses long enough to see some signs of reality.
Now, he’s just acting like he wants to grab his flag and lead the charge over the cliff with more determination then ever before. The political bloodbath of impeachment may be the better choice when your other option is a real and greater bloodbath in Iraq.
“Having his veto and eating it to”
Typo
Thanks JosephW for the Constitutional context.
Of course you get my meaning.
Calling for impeachment implies that Bush is acting with willful misconduct. I’m saying “F**K impeachment!” He’s delusional and should be removed for being non-competent (different than incompetent, which he also is.)
I hope you don’t seriously think I believe any of this can come to pass.
It seems to be a natural consequence of the president’s contempt for a gøddámņëd piece of paper.
Right now, a president has the right to search communications (paper and wireless), but he has to do it under the auspices of the FISA Court (which has historically approved more than 99% of all requests). In an emergency situation, he may open it first and get permission later.
The problem is, when you request a warrant, either before or afterwards, you have to provide reasons for doing so, and Bush is also on record for believing that “One of the great things about being President is that I don’t have to explain myself to anybody”.
ITMFA
Tom, in the interest of accuracy (not your fault, since yourd is the way the quote usually appears on blogs, the actual quote and contec=xt for it are below:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/17/60minutes/main529657.shtml
Woodward managed to get the notes from more than 50 National Security Council and War Cabinet meetings, in which, he says, Mr. Bush dominates his more experienced cabinet members Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld – and even Vice President Ðìçk Cheney.
Woodward says the president told him that when he chairs a meeting he often tries to be provocative. When Woodward asked him if he tells his staff that he is purposely being provocative, Mr. Bush answered: “Of course not. I am the commander, see?”
President Bush: “I do not need to explain why I say things. — That’s the interesting thing about being the President. — Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”
And, in an interesting art-imitating-life sequence, the same statement was uttered twice on one episode of Battlestar Galactica – once, in a flashback from before the attack, by President Adar, when Secretary of Education Laura Roslin was asking why he wanted to provoke a violent confrontation with the teachers’ union; and later, by President Roslin, when asked why she was determined to abort Sharon Valerii’s half-Cylon child.
Word for word – “You know, one of the interesting things about being President is you don’t have to explain yourself to anybody.”
Iraq is a mess, but let’s be reasonable-it’s not Vietnam. Yet….Currently, we’ve lost around 3,000 or so troops in Iraq so far, and Vietnam was something around 50,000 if I’m correct. Do we have the potential to get that high? Sure. Is it likely? No. The military has gotten better in warfare, and besides, our country would demand a pullout before that. Now, if we had gone in with a large amount of troops to begin with, I believe things would have definitely turned out better. But after the fact, I tend to think it’s too late. I can still see the possibility of an increase resulting in success, IF it’s matched by successful politics and diplomacy within Iraq. With Iraq today, I tend to respect the opinion of those that don’t think in absolutes. Because it is incredibly complicated with multiple variables. So saying, ‘we just need to increase troops..”, or “Bush is an idiot, we need to pull out now!” doesn’t hold much water. Each scenario will cost more Iraqi lives. For once, maybe we and the president should stop listening to those who have no military experience, like Donald Rumsfield and Cindy Sheehan, and take into consideration, what the troops and the generals on the ground are saying.
Iraq is a mess, but let’s be reasonable-it’s not Vietnam. Yet….Currently, we’ve lost around 3,000 or so troops in Iraq so far, and Vietnam was something around 50,000 if I’m correct. Do we have the potential to get that high? Sure. Is it likely? No. The military has gotten better in warfare, and besides, our country would demand a pullout before that. Now, if we had gone in with a large amount of troops to begin with, I believe things would have definitely turned out better. But after the fact, I tend to think it’s too late. I can still see the possibility of an increase resulting in success, IF it’s matched by successful politics and diplomacy within Iraq. With Iraq today, I tend to respect the opinion of those that don’t think in absolutes. Because it is incredibly complicated with multiple variables. So saying, ‘we just need to increase troops..”, or “Bush is an idiot, we need to pull out now!” doesn’t hold much water. Each scenario will cost more Iraqi lives. For once, maybe we and the president should stop listening to those who have no military experience, like Donald Rumsfield and Cindy Sheehan, and take into consideration, what the troops and the generals on the ground are saying.
Even in “exigent circumstances”, the authorities eventually have to prove to a court that their actions were justified. And the search still has to be reasonable.
If you’re looking for, i.e, a bomb, opening an envelope that weighs less than an ounce is unreasonable. And even if you’re looking for evidence of a plot to blow up, say, the Empire State Building, opening every letter mailed to or from Manhattan is unreasonable.
Furthermore, if you open a letter (without a warrant) looking for evidence of a bomb plot and find, instead, evidence of an embezzlement scheme, the court should throw the evidence out of court, as it is not connected to the exigent circumstances that required the warrantless search, and there was no probable cause to open the letter otherwise.
Even in “exigent circumstances”, the authorities eventually have to prove to a court that their actions were justified. And the search still has to be reasonable.
If you’re looking for, i.e, a bomb, opening an envelope that weighs less than an ounce is unreasonable. And even if you’re looking for evidence of a plot to blow up, say, the Empire State Building, opening every letter mailed to or from Manhattan is unreasonable.
Furthermore, if you open a letter (without a warrant) looking for evidence of a bomb plot and find, instead, evidence of an embezzlement scheme, the court should throw the evidence out of court, as it is not connected to the exigent circumstances that required the warrantless search, and there was no probable cause to open the letter otherwise.
Even in “exigent circumstances”, the authorities eventually have to prove to a court that their actions were justified. And the search still has to be reasonable.
If you’re looking for, i.e, a bomb, opening an envelope that weighs less than an ounce is unreasonable. And even if you’re looking for evidence of a plot to blow up, say, the Empire State Building, opening every letter mailed to or from Manhattan is unreasonable.
Furthermore, if you open a letter (without a warrant) looking for evidence of a bomb plot and find, instead, evidence of an embezzlement scheme, the court should throw the evidence out of court, as it is not connected to the exigent circumstances that required the warrantless search, and there was no probable cause to open the letter otherwise.
I think measuring Iraq’s resemblance to Vietnam purely in terms of numbers dead isn’t the right way to look at it. If nothing else, it was possible to replenish casualties faster because, hey…there was a draft. Endless supply of unwilling bodies to be thrown over there. So more high risk situations, more casualties.
What made Vietnam Vietnam wasn’t simply the total number of poor young soldiers who lost their lives. It was the concept of the quagmire: The endless mission with no clear delineation, no clear objective, shock being displayed over American atrocities that underscore just what being in that type of situation can do to even the most well-intentioned individuals, and no end in sight. In fact, in some ways it’s even worse than Vietnam because the people making the decision to start the war and perpetuate the war never actually served in combat situations and thus have no personal idea of what they’re subjecting the troops to. It’s a war of personal detachment.
PAD
As far as swearing to uphold the Constitution and putting your hand on the Bible, so if it’s not a Bible, the swearing-in doesn’t count, I am pretty sure that using the Bible is not an official part of the ceremony. The person being inducted into office doesn’t swear on the Bible or to God to uphold the Constitution–it’s not a religious ceremony. They just swear to do so–like it’s on their honor and a personal vow. The Bible (or the Koran or whatever) is just there for show and isn’t needed for the vow to be official. Right?
Jeffery R. Lindholm
Pat O’neil stated
“Furthermore, if you open a letter (without a warrant) looking for evidence of a bomb plot and find, instead, evidence of an embezzlement scheme, the court should throw the evidence out of court, as it is not connected to the exigent circumstances that required the warrantless search, and there was no probable cause to open the letter otherwise.”
This accidental uncovering of evidence could then be used to start an investigation by the proper agency with out ever being used as evidence and only be refered to as a reliable source if even that.
My problem is that they seem to be collecting all this warrentless info knowing it can not be used in court…. the question becomes what do they intend to use it for…? and if I have learned anything about ethics in my life it is this simple rule “nothing gained in an unethical manner can ever provide truly ethical results”
John
“This accidental uncovering of evidence could then be used to start an investigation by the proper agency with out ever being used as evidence and only be refered to as a reliable source if even that.”
Actually, it can’t. We’ve done this before and gone all the way to the Supreme Court with it.
There was a case where police were using an infrared camera sysytem on a stake out of one house, flashed another with the viewfinder and picked up a attic area kicking off enough heat to clearly be a hidden, home made green house. One of the drug guys checked it out and, due to past experience with the system, decided that this was a set up to grow pot.
They got a warrant, hit the house and found boatloads of pot growing in the attic. The case got thrown out.
The ruling stated that you could not legally have observed the house growing the pot with an infrared camera without first having had the warrant to do so due to privacy issues. The camera’s infrared system was seen as, legally, being the same as entering the home to search it without a warrant.
They also ruled that you could not use this evidence to obtain the warrant in the first palce because you had to first illegally intrude into the subject’s privacy, even if it was accidentally, to gather the information for the warrant. It’s not like someone opening a package outside in plain view of everyone or gtting a driver’s permission to check their trunk while making a traffic stop.
That’s what makes this even dumber. You can’t legally do anything with any information you obtain this way. You can’t even legally use it to make your next search legal.
Sure, the Feds do work under slightly different rules then us, but not that different. They have many of the same restrictions to protect the public’s privacy that we do.
I’d post the ruling’s name for you all to check it out, but I can’t remember the name off the top of my head and I can’t spend the time to look it up as I’m out the door and on the way to work in about ten minutes. Maybe one of the two lawyers that post here from time to time can save me the time later by posting it before I’m back. 🙂
This isn’t the one we went over in training, but it does back some of that up.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZS.html
and besides, our country would demand a pullout before that
The country is doing that now, And it doesn’t make one dámņ bit of difference to the boy emperor. He wants his wars & by dámņ he’s gonna have them no matter what anyone says.
Now, if we had gone in with a large amount of troops to begin with, I believe things would have definitely turned out better
I doubt that. The small force that was sent in was insuffeciently equipped & prepared, and a larger force would have been even less so. Besides which there was no plan beyond ‘get Saddam’, and large force or small our invasion was not welcomed and would be the target of violence anyway.
Also, disbanding Iraq’s army & police forces leaving only our troops to maintain order in a place where they are not only unwelcomed, but unable to speak the language was just asking for violence to erupt.
[b]Jeffery R. Lindholm[/b]
[i]
As far as swearing to uphold the Constitution and putting your hand on the Bible, so if it’s not a Bible, the swearing-in doesn’t count, I am pretty sure that using the Bible is not an official part of the ceremony. The person being inducted into office doesn’t swear on the Bible or to God to uphold the Constitution–it’s not a religious ceremony. They just swear to do so–like it’s on their honor and a personal vow. The Bible (or the Koran or whatever) is just there for show and isn’t needed for the vow to be official. Right?
[/i]
Right. Which made the recent flap over the Koran being used even more ridiculous in my mind.
I’d have to disagree that our country is demanding a pull-out right now. You’re not seeing the massive demonstrations that you did in Vietnam. This is most likely because, even though the American public isn’t happy with us being there, they also worry about what happens if we leave. There’s a sense of ‘we went in there and made this mess, and if we leave it’ll probably get even worse than it is-civil war and genocide on even a bigger level. And I still feel that a large amount of troops in the beginning might have made a positive difference for major reason: psychological warfare. In other words, your overwhelmed-don’t even think about acting up. But instead, we allowed looting to begin with immediately, which planted the seed of anarchy, and no one’s in control.
…sigh…
One of these days, either the preview function will work for me so I’ll know that I typed UBB code instead of HTML, or I’ll just stop trying to get fancy.
Vietnam: The endless mission with no clear delineation, no clear objective,
OK, so I was pretty young back then, and living in the Great White North, not in the U.S. Still seemed to me there was a pretty clear mission objective: prevent sovereign country A – South Vietnam – from being taken over by the forces of country B – North Vietnam and its allies (the Soviets/Chine a.k.a. The Bad Guys). Rebel forces helping the Bad Guys in South Vietnam did complicate matters, but still left the basic mission unchanged: helping out a sovereign people against unfriendly forces. And a pretty clear deliniation: the geographic boundaries of South Vietnam. Incursions into Cambodia and possibly elsewhere were another matter.
Time delination? As long as it takes. Consider Europe and all the U.S. forces stationed there to keep the Evil Empire at bay for decades. A lot longer than the U.S. presence in Vietnam. Yes, I know, they weren’t being shot at in Europe. But the point is still valid. The government undertook a long-term mission with no clear idea of when it would be able to bring the boys home. Yet I don’t see anyone here pointing to that as having been a Bad Thing. If one is going to give up just because things are becoming unpleasant, then there’s no point in doing/trying anything.
I remember how upset many people were about how long it took ‘neutral’ U.S. to join in on WW I and WW II. Or that Japan didn’t get involved militarilly in the first Gulf fracas (as if their U.S.-imposed Constitution would have allowed it). Yet piles of people complain about Japan’s earlier military actions, and now people complain about the U.S. taking a hand. Can’t they make up their minds?
Jerry Chandler posted:
“The ruling stated that you could not legally have observed the house growing the pot with an infrared camera without first having had the warrant to do so due to privacy issues. The camera’s infrared system was seen as, legally, being the same as entering the home to search it without a warrant.”
That was that Court. We have a much different Court now. I would expect that ruling to be changed were it to be challenged at this time.
And remember when the notion of a buffoon who couldn’t put two sentences together without sounding like a moron becoming president was so ridiculous that Dan Quayle just kind of dried up and blew away?
This reminds me of a Boondocks strip…let me see if I can find it in the book…
OK, here it is…
HUEY: Speaking of stupid, you know who’s got to be really mad about Bush being President?
CAESAR: You mean Gore?
HUEY: No, no. I mean REALLY mad.
CAESAR: Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton?
HUEY: Nope, madder than that.
CAESAR: WHO?
HUEY: Dan Quayle.
CAESAR: Ahh, yes. Intellectually, a man way ahead of his time.
I really think that W. formed his initial impression of what it means to be President of the United States about the same time we all do: When we’re five or six years old, our parents tell us we can’t do something. We throw a tantrum because “it’s not fair! You never let me do anything!!” Our parents reply, “Well, when you’re President of the United States, you can do whatever you want. But until then, you’ll do as you’re told.”
The difference is that most of us, as we grow older, understand that the Presidency doesn’t confer absolute dictatorial power. Clearly, the Current Occupant has never figured that out and still views his power from the perspective of the five-year-old who wanted to stay up past 7:30 and watch Highway Patrol or whatever was on in 1951 or ’52 that a five-year-old would have wanted to watch. He’s President, goddammit, and he’s gonna do whatever he dámņ well pleases no matter what that mean ol’ Constitution says. So there.
Bill,
Saying that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t protect us from warrantless searches is ridiculous. Interpreting the language of the amendment in that manner would require a deliberate misreading of its text, particularly including the name of the amendment itself:
Amendment IV: Warrants and searches.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Note that between the guarantee of protection from “unreasonable searches and seizures” and the requirements for issuance of Warrants there is a comma — not a PERIOD, a COMMA. The two were clearly written as a single thought, not as separate thoughts under one heading. The implication of the amendment is clear: search and seizure are not to be performed without a warrant, and to obtain a warrant the state is required to show cause.
Andy McCarthy’s reading is wrong, plain and simple.
David, you raise a good point–McCarthy should have included the entire sentence–but thinking it over, it seems clear to me that saying “search and seizure are not to be performed without a warrant, and to obtain a warrant the state is required to show cause” can’t be entirely correct. A lot of what cops legally do requires action without a warrant.
As wikipedia states The Supreme Court has said that some searches and seizures may violate the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement even if a warrant is supported by probable cause and is limited in scope.[2] Conversely, the Court has approved routine warrantless seizures, for example “where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.”[3] Thus, the reasonableness requirement and the warrant requirement are somewhat distinct.
I also liked this part It has been held that searches in public schools require neither warrants nor probable cause. (See New Jersey v. T. L. O., 468 U.S. 325 (1985)). It is merely necessary that the searching officers have reasonable grounds for believing that the search will result in the finding of evidence of illegal activity. I always like to drop that factoid on the little darlings when they get on their “I’ll sue!” rants; “If the principal takes my cell phone, I’ll sue!“, “If Sniffy, the drug sniffing dog, drools on my bookbag, I’ll sue!” that kind of thing.
I always like to drop that factoid on the little darlings when they get on their “I’ll sue!” rants; “If the principal takes my cell phone, I’ll sue!”, “If Sniffy, the drug sniffing dog, drools on my bookbag, I’ll sue!” that kind of thing.
You ought to simply say “fine, go right ahead, then, when it gets tossed out of court, I’ll have fun counter-suing your parents for having raised an idiot for a son/daughter.”
You ought to simply say “fine, go right ahead, then, when it gets tossed out of court, I’ll have fun counter-suing your parents for having raised an idiot for a son/daughter.”
But then he’d get sued for calling the deserving child an idiot.
Honest to God I’ve been told that I could be sued for saying “Shut up.”
(Normally I would not use those exact words but trust me on this, the circumstances warranted it)
Of course, this legal advice came from the same kid who swears that his cousin told him that if you take a mouthful of whiskey before submitting to a breathalyzer, the result will be so off the charts that they won’t be able to use it in court. This is also the kid whose Mom has to drive him to school every day because he lost his drivers license, this despite his legal acumen.
“This is also the kid whose Mom has to drive him to school every day because he lost his drivers license, this despite his legal acumen.”
Yeah, I love those urban legends. I knew a guy years ago who blew a $45,000 a year job (at the age of 24) because he wouldn’t give up pot at a job that did scheduled drug tests. The reason, he had been told by a reliable source (who read it in something like High Times if I remember right) that you could pass the pee test by drinking a gallon or more of water about 45 minutes before the test.
The reason? Your kidneys can’t hold a gallon of water and your body would expel the tainted sample before the test. By the time you did the test, you’d be expelling clean water. Five of us spent about an hour trying to explain to dork-boy that this would only work if the kidneys were hooked directly up to the mouth and not one of the last stops for liquids on the way out. Nope. Not hearing it. His source knew what he was talking about.
Kinda like your young fountain of knowledge, he didn’t learn anything either. He screwed himself on two more jobs before joining the army and getting busted for drugs there. I have no idea where he is now. Probably jail. Hopefully your charges turn out to be brighter bulbs in the long run then he was.
I’ve seen enough people turn their lives around that it keeps the hope alive. I’ve also seen some die. Sad to say, the difference seems to be 9/10 pure happenstance.
The Bible has no official role in being sworn in. It is a tradition, and only a tradition.